MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152144623 · doi:10.1109/robio.2009.5420762

Adaptive local threshold with shape information and its application to object segmentation

2009· article· en· W2152144623 on OpenAlexaff
Jichuan Shi, Hong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationScale-space segmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceComputer visionGround truth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel local threshold segmentation algorithm for digital images incorporating shape information. In image segmentation, most of local threshold algorithms are only based on intensity analysis. In many applications where an image contains objects with a similar shape, besides the intensity information, prior known shape attributes could be exploited to improve the segmentation. The goal of this work is to design a local threshold algorithm that includes shape information to enhance the segmentation quality. The algorithm can be divided into two steps: adaptively selecting local threshold based on maximum likelihood, and then removing unwanted segmented fragments by a supervised classifier. Shape attribute distributions are learned from typical objects in ground truth images. Local threshold for each object in an image to be segmented is chosen to maximize probabilities of these shape attributes according to learned distributions. After local thresholds are picked, the algorithm applies a supervised classifier trained by shape features to reject unwanted fragments. Experiments on oil sand images have shown that the proposed algorithm has superior performance to local threshold approaches based on intensity information in terms of segmentation quality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207